skintone

[Brandon J.F.]

Thanks Mark. Very helpful.

 

[Nick Morrison]

It would be amazing if RedColor4 would work on the current Epic and Scarlet and Red One MX sensors as well. But I don't know much about it. Skin tone is definitely the Red Cameras's Achilles heel, and got many people to consider the Alexa for their shoots. Red Color 3 is quite great - I'm pretty happy with it. But yes, if the skin tone could naturally land on the flesh tone line on the vectorscope with minimal adjustments. But I'm no engineer or anything of that sort and I appreciate the constant improvements Red makes to improve its camera. It's quite amazing.

Ed, when RedColor4 does come out, it will apply to ALL red cameras. The footage is RAW. And everything else we apply are just LUTs. What camera produced the footage has no effect on the future color spaces. Presumably RedColor4 will work on even the ORIGINAL Red One (pre Mx) camera footage. What's amazing is you can grab OLD Raw footage and apply the latest color space. Something that happened when RedColor3 came out...people were able to re-grade old projects with the NEW color space, non-destructively.

Pretty awesome.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

This and highlight rolloff are the two things I hear most often about the Alexa's advantages when I'm out in the field, aside from the usual workflow statements.

The thing that drives me nuts is that most of the folks making these comments all the time are guys looking at monitors on the set. I see EPIC, ALEXA (log-c and ARRIRAW) footage from films almost every day projected in a calibrated DI theatre environment being color graded and the "ALEXA has better skin tones" comment is simply a foolish comment. ALEXA has a great look "out of box" which is what many people respond to - but if you don't think you can get amazing skin tones from R3D files ... you might want to consider a different post facility. Of course, lighting and make-up always play into this - and on many lower budget, indie films lighting and make-up are often below-par - so one has to work a bit harder in the color grade - regardless of what digital camera was used. I recently screened FLIGHT and HITCHCOCK, (both films DI's at Light Iron) - and I find it pretty hard to believe that any sane person would criticize the skin tones on either of those films.

OFFHOLLYWOOD just completed the DI's on two high-profile Sundance World Premiere's THE LIFEGUARD and WE ARE WHAT WE ARE - one is Alexa and one is EPIC. Same colorist. Both movies look great and the directors and DPs are thrilled with how their films look. Which one has "better skin tones"? Very subjective question ... but I can say that WE ARE WHAT WE ARE, graded R3D RAW - 4K finish - IMO is one of the best looking films we ever worked on - and has "better looking" skin tones IMO than a the major episodic TV shows that I watch that are shot on Alexa. I prefer when a DP or anyone else says "I just prefer the look" - that is a comment I can respect over "the XYZ has better skin tones".

 

[Björn Benckert]

To me this whole alexa color debate is quite odd.

As it's very easy to shoot a color palette in ARRI RAW turn it to dpx LOG C, then swap camera and shoot it r3d and make that into a redlog film dpx all using with the same lens etc and then use a proper color matching tool where you sample a few pixels of each grayscale and color square of the palette and then create a lookup table from it.

So no I do not see why you would need the footage to stay raw all trough your pipeline. REDLOG is a very nice picture to work from both for efx work and log grading. I think the shit that goes wrong is when people start dicking around with colors as they where lin instead of log or opposite.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

To me this whole alexa color debate is quite odd.

As it's very easy to shoot a color palette in ARRI RAW turn it to dpx LOG C, then swap camera and shoot it r3d and make that into a redlog film dpx all using with the same lens etc and then use a proper color matching tool where you sample a few pixels of each grayscale and color square of the palette and then create a lookup table from it.

So no I do not see why you would need the footage to stay raw all trough your pipeline. REDLOG is a very nice picture to work from both for efx work and log grading. I think the shit that goes wrong is when people start dicking around with colors as they where lin instead of log or opposite.

Not sure if this was directed to my statement or not but the reason I was asking for RAW files is because without the camera originals it's difficult to know what was done to the file when it was processed. Mistakes can happen, or even subjective decisions can be made. If I'm going to make a subjective analysis on which skin tone looks better I want to start with all of the data and work from there. As far as normal, everyday color grading, that's a different issue and I know colorists can do great things with either the RAW files or DPX that has been processed well.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

The thing that drives me nuts is that most of the folks making these comments all the time are guys looking at monitors on the set. I see EPIC, ALEXA (log-c and ARRIRAW) footage from films almost every day projected in a calibrated DI theatre environment being color graded and the "ALEXA has better skin tones" comment is simply a foolish comment. ALEXA has a great look "out of box" which is what many people respond to - but if you don't think you can get amazing skin tones from R3D files ... you might want to consider a different post facility. Of course, lighting and make-up always play into this - and on many lower budget, indie films lighting and make-up are often below-par - so one has to work a bit harder in the color grade - regardless of what digital camera was used. I recently screened FLIGHT and HITCHCOCK, (both films DI's at Light Iron) - and I find it pretty hard to believe that any sane person would criticize the skin tones on either of those films.

OFFHOLLYWOOD just completed the DI's on two high-profile Sundance World Premiere's THE LIFEGUARD and WE ARE WHAT WE ARE - one is Alexa and one is EPIC. Same colorist. Both movies look great and the directors and DPs are thrilled with how their films look. Which one has "better skin tones"? Very subjective question ... but I can say that WE ARE WHAT WE ARE, graded R3D RAW - 4K finish - IMO is one of the best looking films we ever worked on - and has "better looking" skin tones IMO than a the major episodic TV shows that I watch that are shot on Alexa. I prefer when a DP or anyone else says "I just prefer the look" - that is a comment I can respect over "the XYZ has better skin tones".

I agree. I sometimes poke around the makeup artist forums just to see what they are discussing about cameras and how they approach things and I have discovered interesting things. There are some really good makeup people out there who really get the digital side of things. One in particular seems to have a fantastic relationship with DPs and gaffers and knows the insides and outs of the cameras and lighting gear. That's the type of dedication that gets great results no matter what camera is being used. I like that.

 

[Mark Toia]

Why compress down to HD colour backed DPX when you dont need too... ?

5k or 4k RAW workflow is easy and great !. Yes its a real struggle if your a AUTODESK user...

I can't go backwards now... I like to tinker with my 5k images right until the very end. It's like having my NEG's at my finger tips.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Not sure if this was directed to my statement or not but the reason I was asking for RAW files is because without the camera originals it's difficult to know what was done to the file when it was processed. Mistakes can happen, or even subjective decisions can be made. If I'm going to make a subjective analysis on which skin tone looks better I want to start with all of the data and work from there. As far as normal, everyday color grading, that's a different issue and I know colorists can do great things with either the RAW files or DPX that has been processed well.

No Steve, that was not aimed at you. I, just as you like the raw files to start to work from. So I guess it was more aimed towards mark comment that VFX works should be done with the actual r3d's. however that is not possible in most 3D packages and VFX workflows.

 

[Ed David]

I just would love for out of the box the skin tones to hit on the skin tone line on my vectorscope in most standard tungsten and daylight lighting conditions. Red Color3 is pretty great, so I'm really happy with that. But it's still not there. I'd love for it to be really easy to nail the skin tone vs going in and playing around with the color wheels in Red Cine-X or having to bring it into Resolve or more advanced coloring programs. I'm not talking about taking it to a DI. I'm just talking about grading the R3Ds in Red Cine-X. Just really simply getting it in a good spot right away.

With the Alexa, the Log-C Pro Res 444 files come out pretty good this way and same when shooting with Matrix off on the Sony F3. The Epic stuff I shoot rarely goes to a colorist. And unfortunately I imagine the same is true for a lot of Epic shoots due to limited budgets on most shoots, and maybe where the Red Epic gets its stigma of not having the most pleasing skin tones.

I mean I was sitting in the Kodak masterclass at Sundance 2012 last year and all the DPs on the panel all said the same thing and laughed at the Red's skin tones. One DP said in front of the crowd of 30 people, "I'd shoot film, and maybe I'd consider the Alexa, but definitely not the Red," And everyone laughed. I'd love for this to not happen ever again.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

The people who are slowest to change are the people with the most invested in the old way. Don't expect too many DPs who have been around shooting film for a long time to wholeheartedly embrace the potential in shooting raw digital. Everyone needs to do what works best for them but overall, things will move forward; and RED is definitely part of the future. Anyone who is ruffled by someone's offhand sarcastic remark might do best to invest more in their own knowledge and gain self confidence in their own choices. There will always be naysayers.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Why compress down to HD colour backed DPX when you dont need too... ?

5k or 4k RAW workflow is easy and great !. Yes its a real struggle if your a AUTODESK user...

I can't go backwards now... I like to tinker with my 5k images right until the very end. It's like having my NEG's at my finger tips.

Mark DPX is not compressed and it does not have to be HD and regarding colors it will hold your whole r3d in it's hands no problem...

I bet you want to tinkler with the files right to the end but if you do any sort of 3D work that invlolve those images then you need to leave the land of r3d.

And trust me I have tried using r3d's in shake, nuke, flame, smoke, aftereffects and all the rest and you know what, as soon as you start doing anything except for grading and editing the shit fails. As it is now I find larger r3d's to cause memory leaks in most programs. doing little 45 second commercials is no problem, but putting together a comp with 50 layers 10 minute long clips or so, then there will be trolls coming out of the r3d's where as dpx files work... as the always had.

Working on 5k r3d's in nuke will lead to bad memory leaks. same goes for autodesk and the rest. 3D packages does not even bother with the format.

Basically what I trying to state is the fact that having r3d's all the way trough will leave no guarantee for good skintones and going to DPX or 16 bit tiff will not ruin things if it's done correctly.

 

[Ed David]

Yes Terry but I want them to be optimistic with shooting on Red, instead of all going full-force into the Alexa. I'm now invested in Red and I want Red to succeed. I'm excited for the Dragon, but I just want them to not have any issues with skin tones just as I have some difficulties navigating through them. I agree, who cares what other people think, but I have to put up a fight a lot of times to have the producer and director go for the Epic vs Alexa, and I feel like other DPs probably run into the same issue.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

You notice how I have left film out of the comparison request. To me, film just has a different way of capturing an image. I think the focus now needs to be on how to maximize digital sensors to deliver pleasing images (and by pleasing, I mean achieving the goals of the filmmakers and ultimately the audience watching in relation to the story).

I have been told of some tests where high end DPs and directors were brought in and shown some blind tests and got stumped between Alexa and Red. So, although some may laugh RED off, there's still a lot of FUD out there. Again, this is not to declare RED the winner in skintones. I can't claim that. I just don't think it's as clear cut as some make it out to be. I know of some situations that Red color science sometimes struggles. I know of some situations where Alexa struggles as well. I certainly don't want to make this out to be a RED love fest. Just saying, there's room for debate on both sides. And usually a thorough test that takes into account lighting, makeup and post process can be very revealing. I highly recommend people to check out some of the makeup forums where some of these artists offer their experience.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Simply I think arri uses 3Dluts for their previews that are appealing to more people than the versions of red color science that is out there. If we just could apply any 3D lut in camera I think the discussion would end quite quickly.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Simply I think arri uses 3Dluts for their previews that are appealing to more people than the versions of red color science that is out there. If we just could apply any 3D lut in camera I think the discussion would end quite quickly.

You can do this. For example, you can feed the SDI out of an Epic into Pomfort Livegrade which will then simulate a RED LUT which can be further manipulated to create CDL values and then that can be exported for dailies or grading. There are a lot of different workflows for achieving the look you want and to a certain extent it can be done on set, live.

If you want to do it all in camera, then one must figure out what parameters need to be adjusted in the metadata to create offsets for things they don't like with the default looks. Maybe not a perfect system, but there are ways to get the image close in camera, just takes testing and re-testing.

Many ways to skin the cat...

 

[Mark Toia]

No Steve, that was not aimed at you. I, just as you like the raw files to start to work from. So I guess it was more aimed towards mark comment that VFX works should be done with the actual r3d's. however that is not possible in most 3D packages and VFX workflows.

I run a lot of my jobs through flame, smoke, nuke, inferno's, AE, scratch, base-light, resolve, Maya, 4d, Max etc... . And your correct, not many of these programs can run a R3D pipeline smoothly.
Hence why we close to final grade directly from the RAW files first... So the 3d and compositors artsits have as close to the final image to work with, from the very start of the project.

When doing my own post in house or out of my laptop in a hotel room somewhere in the world, I do stay in RAW as long as I can through AE, PREM, FCPX and RESOLVE. In these programs (and I know your a purist Autodesk man and look down on programs like these ) I can stay in RAW to the very end, and in 4k... and work very very fast. CPU rendering is my saviour.

I mean I was sitting in the Kodak masterclass at Sundance 2012 last year and all the DPs on the panel all said the same thing and laughed at the Red's skin tones. One DP said in front of the crowd of 30 people, "I'd shoot film, and maybe I'd consider the Alexa, but definitely not the Red," And everyone laughed. I'd love for this to not happen ever again.

I also sat in a conference were I heard similar jibes from so called industry leaders... but when I asked who actually grades directly from the raw files, none of them could answer me, then one of the guys jumped up and siad DPX is better than RAW for grading. ...???? At the end of the day, it comes down to what these people get told or what pipeline these people get pushed through. Ive quite often re-graded other directors & DP's original files for them to show them what they could have got. They always look at me in disbelief... which turns into Anger. But at least it shows them that the camera is not at fault.

 

[Brad Allen]

I also sat in a conference were I heard similar jibes from so called industry leaders... but when I asked who actually grades directly from the raw files, none of them could answer me, then one of the guys jumped up and siad DPX is better than RAW for grading. ...???? At the end of the day, it comes down to what these people get told or what pipeline these people get pushed through. Ive quite often re-graded other directors & DP's original files for them to show them what they could have got. They always look at me in disbelief... which turns into Anger. But at least it shows them that the camera is not at fault.

In your opinion Mark, has knowledge of RAW workflows (grading in particular) been improving at all over time? I feel like it's been a continual frustration for many of us that people don't understand how or why they should be working with RAW files in the grade if possible.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I run a lot of my jobs through flame, smoke, nuke, inferno's, AE, scratch, base-light, resolve, Maya, 4d, Max etc... . And your correct, not many of these programs can run a R3D pipeline smoothly.
Hence why we close to final grade directly from the RAW files first... So the 3d and compositors artsits have as close to the final image to work with, from the very start of the project.

When doing my own post in house or out of my laptop in a hotel room somewhere in the world, I do stay in RAW as long as I can through AE, PREM, FCPX and RESOLVE. In these programs (and I know your a purist Autodesk man and look down on programs like these ) I can stay in RAW to the very end, and in 4k... and work very very fast. CPU rendering is my saviour.
.

No Im not a Autodesk purist and I do not look down on AE, FCP or such. We use those all the time. And Im very much on your side here Mark. I'm probably one of the few flame users that actually like working from the r3d's and do so all the time, but it takes some effort and you will hit some walls. So far the most badass way I managed to work, is to set it up so each input clip in my flame batch timeline has a trimmed r3d input, a graded dpx 16 bit sequence and also a compressed 8bit jpg feed. Then I have best of all just a click away. One for fast test renders, one for in depth colors and feed as the colorist wanted it to look. From there I mix from the graded source and use the r3d's if needed to bring back detail or frankly quite often redo the whole grade to the better as there are quite a few so called "colorists" out there that does not get the things right especially when grading VFX plates.

 

[Mark Toia]

Mark DPX is not compressed and it does not have to be HD and regarding colors it will hold your whole r3d in it's hands no problem...

I bet you want to tinkler with the files right to the end but if you do any sort of 3D work that invlolve those images then you need to leave the land of r3d.

And trust me I have tried using r3d's in shake, nuke, flame, smoke, aftereffects and all the rest and you know what, as soon as you start doing anything except for grading and editing the shit fails. As it is now I find larger r3d's to cause memory leaks in most programs. doing little 45 second commercials is no problem, but putting together a comp with 50 layers 10 minute long clips or so, then there will be trolls coming out of the r3d's where as dpx files work... as the always had.

Working on 5k r3d's in nuke will lead to bad memory leaks. same goes for autodesk and the rest. 3D packages does not even bother with the format.

Basically what I trying to state is the fact that having r3d's all the way trough will leave no guarantee for good skintones and going to DPX or 16 bit tiff will not ruin things if it's done correctly.

Ok.. because I live and work in TV commercial land and not in a movie long format land... I cannot argue with you about memory leaks on longer durations.
4k 16bit depth DPX.. I've never used only because the file size is way to larger and cumbersome.
2k 12bit DPX is all I have every used with no great success with. So much so that I will never use it again.. and any post house that forces my jobs to go down a 12bit color baked route I usually take the job off them. or create my own graded files for them to work from.
As 3d goes, I send them only (close to) final graded images to work with in what ever format they feel comfortable with. I'll never ever send them log or ungraded shots to work to. Once their 3d has been composited back into the master, then we may finalise the grade. If we are working through Aftereffects we composite 32 or 64bit EXRs over our R3D's giving us true raw flexibility on all levels... But as Memoery leaks go. We havent faced that problem as yet, but I'm sure it exists as you say.

Everyone does it differently Björn, and Im sure your know dumby... and respect your feedback.

 

[paulherrin]

In your opinion Mark, has knowledge of RAW workflows (grading in particular) been improving at all over time? I feel like it's been a continual frustration for many of us that people don't understand how or why they should be working with RAW files in the grade if possible.

i don't think you have to be working in r3d to get the best results out of a grade, but you do want a properly balanced 'one-light' in a decent container (tif, dpx, exr... and i guess you can use prores, mark). as bjorn mentioned, there are quite a few applications that do so much better with sequences. there's a whole workflow thread about all this stuff, i think gunleik started it. [found it: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?78453-RAW-workflow-a-discussion] you can't deliver in r3d, so at some point it gets converted to RGB at some point no matter what, only question is when (and why, and with what, and by whom, and i guess where for the sake of it).